SyKoTiK

Established Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SyKoTiK

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I DO have much experience in software development, actually. Most of my applications and scripts are for specific needs of organizations and businesses or just simply proof-of-concept software if I'm bored or want something for my personal use. And, the ways that you "may do things differently" were outlined in my original post. Just so you don't have to do any scrolling to find it again, I'll say it again: stop calling something a "release candidate" when it shouldn't be any higher than a BETA. Release candidates should have VERY few bugs (or only cosmetic bugs) and should be stable enough for consideration of a final release/end product. Beta means not stable enough for a general release or release candidacy because it has too many bugs that cause serious issues (such as BSoD, buffer overflows/under-runs, general application crashes, etc).
  2. Just thinking to myself a question that I'm sure has been asked MANY times thus far, by MANY people: Why are you pushing for new versions to be in the "Release Candidate" status when you're still fixing major bugs that, if this were any other software development company, would have been worked out in the BETA phases WAY before the product would even be considered stable enough for a general public release and given the title of "Release Candidate". I mean, you guys are still fixing "Blue Screen of Death" issues caused by your software, general I/O and performance issues, and many other pretty serious bugs. Why not just stay in the BETA phase until the product is stable? You guys shouldn't be anywhere near releasing the next version of uTorrent when the 3.1.3 version is still full of bugs and has much room for growth, especially since there really isn't much of a difference between the versions.
  3. Ohhhh. Okay. I was just teasing, but I'm glad that the problem is at least somewhat fixed (at least as much as you can do from the client side) for creating .torrents. Thanks.
  4. So, I guess the admins of ExtraTorrent and the other sites were right when they said that it's a "known bug in uTorrent 3.1.2" that there's something wrong with the hashing algorithm and that the .torrent files actually WERE indexed incorrectly. Hmm... interesting. Good thing I reported it, event though you all said it was a problem with rTorrent and NOT something that you all (the uTorrent devs) had done wrong. You're welcome, in any case.
  5. Some torrent sites are simply broken. The torrents are 100% valid. Please report it to the site owners to fix their torrent parsers. The sites that I'm unable to post the "broken" torrent to have all been notified, and all of them are saying that the torrent itself is not "properly indexed" which is why the site is refusing it. Their sites DO, however, let me post the one that comes from uTorrent 3.0 without any problem at all. I can post every single torrent that I can make, as long as it wasn't made in 3.1.2. Anything made in 3.1.2 is un-postable to most of the popular torrent sites (ExtraTorrent being one, just as an example for you in case you want to try posting there). They're all telling me that it's a "known issue in uTorrent 3.1.2", where the hashing algorithm is not functioning properly when it creates the .torrent (and hash), and that the "fix" is to create the .torrent using uTorrent 3.0 or older (or any other program such as Tixati or Deluge).
  6. uTorrent 3.1.2 (Build 26729) is still generating .torrent files that are poorly indexed and have non-standard hashes. Below all of this text are 2 links - 1 is for a .torrent file created using 3.1.2 of an entire directory, the other is for a .torrent file created using 3.0 of the SAME directory. I've recreated the .torrent file using 3.1.2 upon the release of each new build hoping that the issues would be corrected, however they have yet to be. You'll notice that the first link (the one that was improperly indexed) does still work, however most sites will reject posting it because of its "corruption". The other .torrent file would technically work, however it's never been used (seeded) so it won't actually work. I've just posted these for troubleshooting purposes. http://www.mediafire.com/?k250d09odwwqk5p - .torrent created in 3.1.2 (improperly indexed) http://www.mediafire.com/?qrbvn96cx6aw1xn - .torrent created in 3.0 (properly indexed)
  7. I was browsing through the Advanced section of uTorrent 3.0's options a few minutes ago and came across 2 options that I hadn't noticed before which refer to DNS queries. Both of the IP addresses pre-configured into the client belong to OpenDNS and are: 208.67.222.222 208.67.220.220 The problem, and reason for this submission, is that more than likely a person and/or company will NOT be using these addresses for their main DNS queries. I personally use 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2..1 on the router side, and the IP address of my router on the client side. uTorrent can of course be changed to use whichever IP address(es) a person chooses, but it's confusing to try thinking of a reason why these options even exist instead of it just using the DNS settings of the computer the program is running on. OpenDNS addresses, in my experience, have always had higher than desirable latency and are frequently offline for any number of reasons. Please change the program to either not have these options or to use the settings of the computer the application is running on by default.
  8. Just to ask a question with a more than likely obvious answer, how are you online now to ask your question and why don't you just use your new ISP to download your stuff?
  9. After updating to build 24649 (I haven't tried the build that came out on 2-18-2011 yet) I started receiving these entries in my log. I had never once seen them in any previous build, so I don't know if these are legitimate log entries or if they're false positives (a bug). Let me know what to do (if anything). Thanks in advance. Click here to see the screenshot of my log window
  10. I just installed 22519 and I can right-click on the Feeds label as much as I want without any crashes. You should probably submit a log so they can analyze it.